Skip to main content

tv   FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace  FOX  May 9, 2010 9:00am-10:00am EDT

9:00 am
mother's day. >> we have plenty of nice weather. we have some winds out there. it is going to be gusty and chilly. so mothers take a jacket or sweater if you are doing anything outside but have a great day and happy mother's day. >> call >> chris: i'm chris wallace and this is "fox news sunday." the times square bomb attack failed, but was u.s. security lucky or good? we'll ask john brennan, the president's top counterterrorism advisor. and two congressional leaders on homeland security. senator joe lieberman and congressman pete king. brennan, lieberman and king, live only on "fox news sunday." then world financial markets are rocked from wall street to the streets of greece. we'll ask our sunday panel what it means for the u.s. economy. and our power player of the week. a mother's day story you'll never forget.
9:01 am
all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. last week's attempted bombing in times square has produced a flood of questions about how to prevent more terrorist attacks on this country. joining us now is john brennan, the president's top counterterrorism advisor. mr. brennan, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thank you, chris. >> chris: let's start with faisal shahzad, the alleged times square bomber. he has reportedly told authorities he was trained by pakistani taliban commanders. on the other hand, general david petraeus had a view at central command said shahzad was a lone wolf who did not have direct contact with terrorists. question: what is your best understanding of this? >> first, i want to wish happy mother's day to the mothers out there, many of them serving in defense of this country. mr. shahzad, who attempted to carry out the attack in times square, it looks as though he was operating on behalf of the tkp, the taliban within
9:02 am
pakistan. a group that is closely allied with al-qaeda and has a murderous agenda similar to al-qaeda. they train together and plan together and plot together. they're almost indistinguishable. this is something we're looking at how in terms of the investigation, understanding exactly who mr. shahzad worked with. the extent of his training and interaction with individuals here or overseas. >> chris: do we believe he was trained by the pakistani taliban? >> yes, we do. >> chris: do we believe he was funded by the pakistani taliban? >> it appears he was. >> chris: does it appear he met with the top taliban le leaders? >> he had interaction with the t.t.p. this is something we're looking at carefully to understand the extent of the interact and the extent of the direction given to him. >> chris: do we believe this was as a result or response to the u.s. drone attack against the taliban in
9:03 am
pakistan? >> the t.t.p. has been working with al-qaeda for a number of years since it was created several years ago. they targeted u.s. interest in pakistan and threatened to carry out attack against us including in the cities. this is something on their agenda and they're determined to carry out the attack. we have to guard against them and the groups aligned with al-qaeda. >> chris: do we believe that shahzad became a u.s. citizen to travel back and forth to pakistan more easily to carry out these attacks? >> he clearly traveled back and forth to pakistan number numerous times. the motivation for his citizenship i'm not able to speak to. he required citizenship that enabled him to travel back and forth. >> chris: if the links are as strong as you believe, what will we do about it? >> maintain the pressure we put on al-qaeda and the groups in pakistan. we are working with the pakistani officials and they've been cooperative in
9:04 am
the investigation. it underscores the determination of this ruthless enemy and it underscores the importance to maintain vigilance, not to be complacent and keep the pressure on them. find them and capture them, arrest them or kill them if we can. >> chris: in a sense does it mean a new escalated offensive against the pakistani taliban? >> again, this just illustrates they are going to continue to try every day to find vulnerabilities in the defenses. that is why we have a redundant system in place and why we have been carried out determined effort with pakistan and inside of pakistan and afghanistan, to grade their capabilities. the lack of sophistication and lack of capability on their part demonstrates we have been successful because they are no longer able to carry out the large attacks. they are still trying to do it and we have to vigilant against them, but these type of attack we see, shahzad,
9:05 am
shows the inability to plot and carry out the plots in sophisticated manner. >> chris: secretary clinton is warning pakistan of severe consequences if a successful attack were traced back to insurgent groups inside pakistan. what do you want pakistan to do? and secondly, what are the consequences if they don't? >> we have been working closely with the pakistanis to utilize the intelligence resources that we have to find out where they are. capture them, arrest them, interrogate them. the pakistanis, as i said, have been cooperative, particularly in this investigation. they need to maintain the pressure on all the groups. there are no militant or terrorist groups in pakistan that should be allowed to continue there. they moved to waziristan and they need to continue to apply the pressure there, along the border and other areas. there are a number of terrorists group operating in pakistan and we need to make sure there is no support given to them by the pakistani government. we'll continue the dialogue and the pakistanis understand
9:06 am
the seriousness of this and we'll continue to interact with them and maintain pressure on them an inside of pakistan. >> chris: some top administration say the administration has been more lucky than good in the terror cases given that shahzad and the christmasday attempted bomber abdulmutallab both detonated bombs that just failed to go off. do you consider the times square attack a success for homeland security? >> i ask that homeland security, law enforcement, intelligence and military have done an outstanding job since 9/11. i hear the references for being lucky. tell that to the hundred of thousands of american men and women serving in afghanistan and other part of the world who are at the points of entry and working around the clock here in the united states and abroad. that's not luck. that is patriotism and dedication, capability and talent. we have been able to stop them in their tracks. they are determined. they are going to continue to look for opportunities to get here to the united states. this is something they pledged to do. we have a strong track record, that's why we have
9:07 am
redundant capabilities in place. we're not lucky. we're good. >> chris: but in fairness, you haven't stopped them in their tracks, sir. over the last six months we had nidal hasan, the army major going on a shooting spree in fort hood. abdulmutallab got on a plane on christmas day and set off a bomb that just failed to go off, but he was able to set it off. then we have this guy who traveled back and forth to pakistan, car bomb on saturday night in times square and set it off. failed to go off. you didn't stop them in their tracks. >> we stopped many organizations, terror plots from occurring here and overseas. daily basis we are successful to find them, stop them and killing them and stopping the attack. sometimes they penetrate the fences and get in here and take advantage of the citizenship and opportunities here. we need to maintain vigilance and make sure we're not complacent as all and we're bringing to bear all the tools in the arsenal. this is a long effort and long war. we're continued to do it and
9:08 am
we'll continue and learn lessons from abdulmutallab and the times square incident and refine the system as needed and move forward. >> chris: how do you explain, as the president's top counterterrorism advisor, how do you explain in the last six months there has been three times when terrorists in this country launched attacks before you have been able to stop them? >> we are a country of 300 million people. we are a country that thrives on the freedoms and liberties that make this country so great. so there are people within the united states, sometimes they are attracted to the venomous rhetoric that is coming out from al-qaeda and other individuals overseas. we need to make sure we are able to find them. there are things that can take place in the country that will be outside of the radar of law enforcement, homeland security, intelligence officials. we need to maintain this vigilance and work closely with law enforcement to ensure that they're not able to carry out the successful attacks. >> chris: after the christmas day bombing, president obama's initial response was to call abdulmutallab an isolated extremiextremist.
9:09 am
here is what homeland security secretary napolitano said last sunday about the times square bombing. take a look. >> right now we have no evidence that it is anything other than a one-off. >> chris: question: why is this administration's first response to play down the attacks? >> i don't think it's an attempt to play down. we're trying to be open with the american public and let them know what we know at those times. these investigations are ongoing. within 53 hours we were able to bring successfully this investigation to the point that we were able to find him, stop him and bring him into custody. tremendous interaction and coordination among the elements brought to bear on the effort. so secretary napolitano and others, they're trying to engage the american public and we want to send a reassuring message to the american public we are doing everything possible to find out what is out there and stop them as we can. >> chris: there is no question that extraordinary policework was done to catch this guy in 53 hours. no question about that. but is it reassuring to the
9:10 am
american public when the president calls abdulmutallab an isolated extremist and he turns out not to be and secretary napolitano last sunday says it's a one-off and you're here this sunday to tell us he was integrately involved with the pakistani taliban? >> in each case there, these were individuals operating on behalf of a larger organization. and to try to carry out those attacks on behalf of the agenda. abdulmutallab was a singleton on that plane, but he obviously had links back to al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula. shahzad in times square had links back. but he drove that vehicle to times square alone. >> chris: how long did authorities question shahzad under the public safety exception, the so-called ticking time bomb exception, before they read him his miranda rights? >> he was debriefed and interrogated for several hours under the public safety exception. he was read his miranda rights then. he waived the rights to
9:11 am
counsel. the questioning continued. we are continuing to get important information from him. and the investigation is ongoing. >> chris: we've been told three to four hours; is that correct? >> approximately correct, yes. >> chris: you obviously didn't know when you read him his miranda rights he would keep talking. how did you decide after four hours you got all the information you needed about any current plots; particularly, now that you find out he was involve and directed by the pakistani taliban? >> i don't felt as though we had all the information we needed but we recognize there are certain obligations under the u.s. law and the constitution, and the supreme court decisions that certain actions should be taken. so this is a u.s. citizen who was captured here in the united states, so the investigating officers, the f.b.i. and others worked according to those rules and obligations. very successfully. so it did not impede our ability to continue to acquire very important intelligence, it was a very good example that law enforcement, operating within those, within the existing system were able to leverage
9:12 am
the opportunities they had to get this information. >> chris: was the advice you could not question him under the public safety exception any longer? >> the f.b.i. works with the department of justice. we had consultations within the intelligence community and with the f.b.i. as we were looking at this case, from the first moment that it occurred, so we had that consultation and we knew what we were trying to find out from him under the public safety exception. it was a very good activity and interaction that we had. >> chris: we're going to be talking with senator joe lieberman in a moment. and he now wants to change the law to strip u.s. citizenship of any american who provides material support for a foreign terrorist group. is that a good idea? s>> i will leave it to constitutional scholars and to the right people in the legislative and executive branchs to determine feasibility and advisability of that. i'm most interested in taking these people off the streets, off the battlefield. again, finding them, arresting them, capturing and killing them.
9:13 am
that is the best way we'll be able to protect the american people as well as people worldwide from the scourge of international terrorism. i'm trying to stay focused on finding them and doing everything possible to prevent them from successfully carrying out the attacks. >> chris: this week, attorney general holder continued to say the trial of khalid sheikh mohammed and the other 9/11 codefendants could, could be held in new york city. watch what he had to say. >> we are considering a number of options with regard to where that trial might be held. >> new york is still among those that you are considering? >> yeah. >> chris: why keep saying that? >> because the decision hasn't been made, so by definition all the options are on the table. >> chris: mr. brennan, you know there is no chance that you will hold the trial in new york city. >> what we are trying to do is now determine how best to bring k.s.m. to justice in the swiftest manner possible. there are certain constitutionally-based requirements as far as venue is concerned, the determination made from
9:14 am
article iii or military commissions and these are deliberations taking place right now. until the decision is made, i think it would be fool-hearty to take off of the table any of the perspective courses or venues. >> chris: do you think after the mayor says he doesn't want it, and senators say they don't want it, after the times square attack, do you think it's reasonable to even consider holding the trial of k.s.m. in new york city? >> it's reasonable to look at every option out there and find the best way to bring that murderer to justice. >> chris: even in new york city? >> wherever it can be done. we're working with the congress and local jurisdictions and the department of justice and others to bring him to justice. >> chris: separate matter, is the government investigating whether the 1,000-point drop on wall street on thursday could have been a cyber attack? >> there is no indication that it was. to my knowledge, not at all. i mean they're looking at the causes for that. i know that. so they are looking at whatever possibilities that were out there, but to my knowledge there is no indication that it was.
9:15 am
>> chris: finally, what is the biggest lesson that you have learned from the times square case? what is the biggest security gap that you see that you think we got to fix that? >> i think the lesson is, as i said before, we need to maintain this vigilance. we need to not feel reassured in any way because there hasn't been a successful attack here for so many years. the interaction between local law enforcement, like the nypd and the f.b.i. is critically important. we rely heavily on vigilant citizens demonstrated in the times square case, the naz na o cases as well and make sure we can follow up on them and have a system in place to respond rapidly, find the individuals and make sure that they do not try to attempt to hurt us again. >> chris: mr. brennan, we want to thank you so much, as always for coming in. please come back, sir. >> thank you, chris. >> chris: up next, we will hear from two congressional leaders on homeland security
9:16 am
who are often critics of white house policy. joe lieberman and peter king, after the break. ♪ [ male announcer ] we call it the american renewal. because we believe in the strength of american businesses. ♪ ge capital understands what small businesses need to grow and create jobs. today, over 300,000 businesses rely on ge capital for the critical financing they need
9:17 am
to help get our economy back on track. the american renewal is happening right now. ♪ parents magazine and called it "one of the best family cars of 2009." the insurance institute for highway safety calls it a "2010 top safety pick." consumers digest has called it a "best buy" two years in a row. and with a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty... we call it peace of mind. chevy malibu. during the spring event,
9:18 am
qualified lessees, now get a 27-month, low mileage lease on this malibu ls for around $199 a month. call for details. see your local chevy dealer. >> chris: for more on the terror threat against america, we're joined by the chairman of the senate homeland security committee, joe lieberman. from new york, the top republican on the house committee, congressman peter king. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thank you, chris. >> morning, chris. >> chris: senator lieberman, you just heard mr. brennan,
9:19 am
the white house counterterrorism advisor. your reaction to his discussion of the way that the case of the times square bomber was handled? >> well, after the fact of the attempted bombing attack last saturday night, the reaction was not just excellent, it was almost miraculous. 53 hours and we apprehended him. great cooperation. just the kind of work that we all hoped would happen when we set up the department of homeland security post-9/11. but the fact is that we were lucky. we did not prevent the attempted attack. that's the, in some sense the fourth break-through of our defenses. last spring in arkansas, hasan, the detroit bomber and this one, look we're in a big open society. and if people are fanatical enough to put their own lives on the line, i want to kill other innocent human beings, it's hard to stop them every time. but that has to be our goal. so i say in terms of prevention, the system failed. what we have to do now is go
9:20 am
back and put all the facts together and look at every point was there something that the u.s. government, the allies could have done to stop faisal shahzad before he parked that car in times square? >> >> >> chris: the same basic question picking up on that with you, mr. king, is there something more the obama administration could have done with the last three attacks, now faisal shahzad? >> i was critical for the major hasan shooting and of the abdulmutallab incident on christmas day. but on this one, the evidence isn't in as to what was available. based on what we have seen, i don't know if we could have stopped him, shahzad before he got to times square. we have to wait until all the dots are put out there. it's very difficult because we don't get much information from the administration. but one criticism i do have, chris, is what happened in the last hours of the investigation, that were beginning monday afternoon. high administration sources
9:21 am
were leaking out the most confidential, classified information, which compromised this investigation, put lives at risk and very probably caused shahzad to escape and could have made it undetected to the airport. they put out information i never heard of in a case of this magnitude and it was coming from the administration, coming from washington. i know the troops on the ground in new york were very concerned about it. >> chris: congressman king, you just heard john brennan say that shahzad was questioned for somewhere between three and four hours under the public safety exception before he was read his miranda rights. does this administration have the right balance now between on the one hand -- obvious, one of the problems is shahzad is a u.s. citizen. but between on the one hand gathering intelligence and on the other hand trying to build a criminal case? >> we clearly do not have the right balance on the christmasday bombing. they may have had it this time because i don't know why they made the decision after four hours. i hope they consulted with
9:22 am
the direct forof the national intelligence -- director of the national intelligence, the c.i.a., and all the intelligence community to get everything they could have from shahzad. what you have to realize is we'll face more and more of these domestic attacks because under the bush and obama administration, they have done a basically good job of keeping terrorists from coming in the country. we're going to face more homegrown terrorists. yes, american citizens. we have to find out how are we going to deal with that and what are we going to do with miranda. miranda warnings are a warning, not a right, it's rule of evidence. it's important to find out are there other plots out here rather than what happens to shahzad. he is off the street anyway. but if there are another 10, 15, 20 plots out there, it's important to get all the intelligence we can on that. we have to work on the revisions. senator lindsey graham is talking about setting up actually a separate system of justice dealing with the american citizens allied with foreign army or enemy the way
9:23 am
shahzad seems to have been. >> chris: senator lieberman, that brings us back to you, because you came up with an idea this week, a controversial idea. strip the u.s. citizenship from any american citizen who provides material evidence to a foreign terror group. question: what about the presumption of innocence? how can you strip the citizenship before someone is convicted of a crime? >> well, the presumption of innocence remains. in other words, this is a process. i was surprised at how controversial the recommendation was, frankly. i think in part it was because people don't know that there is a 1940 statute amended several times since that says if you are an american citizen and you join the military of a country that is at war with us, it's basis for the state department to begin a process to revoke your citizenship. that has been upheld by the supreme court. i offered this proposal because we have seen a pattern now. al-qaeda and the other terrorists groups are changing the mode of
9:24 am
operating and increasingly they're looking for american citizens to carry out these plots. one of the reasons is the passport that lets them like shahzad come in and out of the country. so the way this works, chris, the state department decides on intelligence and other factors, the open statements, al-awlaki, the radical cleric in yes yemen is an american citizen. if he is captured, does anybody want him read his miranda rights? no. so i say the state department ought to be able to begin a process and these people can be represented. look, an american citizen takes an oath to defend and protect the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. if you join a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the state department, which is what my amendment says, you violated that oath. you have no more right to be an american citizen. >> chris: but you know, senator, there was a 1940 law, but this were also supreme court rulings in 1967 and 1980 and they said if an
9:25 am
american joins a foreign army, a formal army that is fighting against the u.s., he still doesn't give up his citizenship unless he voluntarily chooses to do so. >> but in those cases, chris, as i read them, they also said that action equals intent. in other words, you can assume somebody's intention by their actions, by the very fact they have taken up arms against the united states of america. >> chris: in those cases they said joining the army wasn't enough. they had to voluntarily waive their citizenship. >> it wasn't that you had to come forward and say, "i'm no longer an american citizen." incidently, if any of the terrorists want to do it they can stop at the local american council's office and say they no longer want to be citizens. people actually do that. but the passport is part of the tool that the terrorist groups have now and it's probably the main reason why terrorists in pakistan wanted to use shahzad. he had an american passport. we have to stop that.
9:26 am
>> chris: congressman king, i want to go back to you and to this interesting conversation i just had about eric holder's statements with john brennan, in which he defended holder who is saying that it's still reasonable to consider holding a trial for k.s.m. and the other 9/11 codefendants in new york city. your reaction? >> he is defending the indefensible. this was the most irresponsible decision any administration ever made when they said they'd hold the trial of khalid sheikh mohammed in lower manhattan. we'd be turning lower manhattan into an armed camp. you are going to be, in effect, making it impossible for people to live in that area. business would be gone. and new york city and the region is already the number one terrorist target in the world. this would only increase it. it was absolutely madness. i don't believe they should be getting civilian trials anyway. john brennan talks about how we have to be aren't of of the rights of khalid sheikh mohammed but -- respectful of the rights of shale shale
9:27 am
shal -- rights of khalid sheikh mohammed. there was military commissions and the obama administration stopped the military commissions to be held in guantanamo. this is absolutely wrong. this should never be held. why they leave it out there, and what it is, eric holder is liberal idealogue and he doesn't want to back off of this and it presents confusion to the country and the world that the president and rahm emanuel made it clear they want the trial out. eric holder says it may stay in. what signal are we sending? we look disorganized and uncoordinate and why john brennan wants to defend that is beyond me. >> chris: do you still have confidence in errick eerrieric attorney general? >> i do not. >> chris: do you want him to step down? >> i wouldn't bothered if he stepped down. he hasn't done anything for cause, but he's not my choice certainly and nothing he has done since then generated confidence in him whatsoever. >> chris: senator lieberman,
9:28 am
do you have confidence in eric holder? >> i disagree with the policies that attorney general holder follows in some of the cases but i haven't lost confidence in him to that extent. as pete king said this is the choice of the president not members of congress. >> chris: finally, senator lieberman, you and senator kerry plan to introduce a new energy bill this week. >> yes. >> chris: given the oil spill in this gulf and your bill calls for more offshore drilling do you think there is a chance that the bill could get passed this year? >> i do. the oil spill in the gulf reminds us of a couple of things. the first is we need to transition our energy system to one that doesn't depend on oil. in the meantime as we are making the transition which the bill would accelerate and create millions of new jobs in the country and make us energy independent, we have to continue to use our domestic energy resources, because every barrel of oil we get from american offshore
9:29 am
or onshore is one barrel less we are paying for to enemies of the united states around the world. so i think we have a real shot at this. i think it's about the best thing we could do to create jobs and make america energy independent and clean up pollution. i believe we'll have the broadest group of supporters wednesday when we launch the bill that has ever come together for an energy independence program. >> chris: senator lieberman, congressman king, we want to thank you both so much for talking with us. it's always a pleasure, gentlemen. >> thank you. >> thank you, chris. >> see you, joe. >> see you, pete. >> chris: coming up, the sunday panel on the times square bombing attempt. w was it a success for homeland security? i'm using my 4g mobile broadband card to download the multimedia client presentation my associate dave here was supposed to bring. and while that's happening, dave will attempt to explain to our boss why he left the one thing he was responsible for back at the office.
9:30 am
okay, got it. what can you do with 4g? [ male announcer ] get a free 3g/4g card from sprint. it's more than a wireless network. it's a wireless revolution. deaf, hard-of-hearing and people with speech disabilities, access www. [ beeping ]
9:31 am
♪ my country ♪ 'tis of thee ♪ sweet land ♪ of liberty ♪ of thee i sing [ laughs ] ♪ oh, land ♪ where my fathers died ♪ land of the pilgrims' pride ♪ from every mountainside ♪ let freedom ring ♪
9:32 am
9:33 am
yes, we have been lucky, but luck is not effective strategy to fight terrorist threat. >> the harder we work, the luckier we get. that's probably the point. >> chris: house republican leader john boehner and speaker nancy pelosi with different views about the case of the times square bomber. and it's time now for our sunday group. bill kristol of "the weekly standard." mara liasson of national public radio. former state department official liz cheney. and juan williams also from national public radio. so, bill, the bomb didn't go off and in an extraordinary piece of police work we caught shahzad in 53 hours. on the other hand, what is your take on the attack, on
9:34 am
the new and apparently stronger information of links to the pakistani taliban and the way it was handled by the obama administration? >> the big picture is what john brennan said this morning. pakistani taliban recruited shahzad and sent him back here to kill americans. the notion this is a homegrown attack, lone wolf, one-off is ridiculous. what is worrisome is the obama administration having gone through the attempt to make hasan isolated extrialist and then umar farouk abdulmutallab isolated extremist and pretend there can't possibly be overseas connections and embarrassed again this past sunday, it's still interesting. maybe this represents a change and we'll be serious about the international attack on us, the war on terror we're fighting to use a term the administration doesn't like much, as opposed to pretend that the random guys pop up here and there and trying to set off bombs. >> it's clear that the administration is not suggesting or pretending as
9:35 am
bill says, that these are random guys. they are involved in a serious effort to stop terrorists who are trained overseas and whether they are homegrown because they happen to be american citizens or not, they get training and they get support, financial and material, and they do things here. i think that just as certain democrats were wrong when they said that george w. bush's purpose in his effort against terrorism was to trample the constitution, i think it's wrong to say barack obama is not serious about the war on terrorism. i do think there is a cautionary tale in this for the administration, which is it's not a good idea to trumpet these successes too much, because there is an element of luck. there is element of hard work and good intelligence and police work but one of these times one of the guys will figure out how to set off the bomb. >> chris: liz, did the obama administration hand the case -- i'm talking about after the fact, after they arrested him -- better than they handled the case of the christmas day bomber and what
9:36 am
difference does it make that shahzad is a u.s. citizen? >> well, i think that it makes some difference in terms of the miranda warnings. although, obviously there is a public safety exemption. i have to say i don't believe it's appropriate for president to give speeching saying we're at war. he has to lead us in the fight. we saw again this morning the counterterrorism advisor talking about luck as though it were a success. as the counterterrorism policy that relies on the incompetence of the terrorist is not leadership and it's not a success. clearly, off situation where the administration is unwilling initially, time and time again, to say yes, this is a vast terror network. yes, these are global islamic jihadists who are attacking us. instead, you know, you've got the counterterrorism advisor saying you know, sometimes people are off the radar. i was struck by the comments this morning. if you have somebody who is travelling to pakistan and training in camps in waziristan, and he's off the radar, we have a problem. we have an intelligence problem. and we're not going to be able to win this war until
9:37 am
the administration recognizes and understands the importance of intelligence and is willing to acknowledge and admit who the enemy actually is. >> well, i think the administration and mr. brennan i thought was so forthcoming with you, chris and it was a great interview because he answered your questions but he was very clear making the case this is an evolving situation, that this is an evolving threat, that you now have more of the single actors who go and try to get training or are inspired by the rhetoric that we hear over the internet. they are taking actions against us in a way because of the success of the u.s. military in breaking down the commander structure of al-qaeda and the taliban. and putting the terrorists and the terror threat in a new error where you have people like shahzad now trying to do some kind of jer jerge jerge jer jerryrigged bomb in times square. it's breaking down the
9:38 am
hierarchy. this is not just specific to obama administration. this is also the case that richard reid had in the bush administration when your dad was around. i mean in power. one last point, this administration has taken action to bomb in northern pakistan against anybody who was suspected to helping train the times square bomber. that is a direct concrete response coming from this administration on this day. >> chris: liz? >> when the administration captures a terrorist and their first instinct is to inform him he's got the right to remain silent, that is exactly the wrong way to win this war. when we capture a terrorist, our first incident has to be how do we understand the networks to which the terrorist is connected? how do we understand where he was trained? how do we understand who the leadership is? if the administration is approaching this -- and again, this morning you had john brennan saying well this was one-off because he drove
9:39 am
the truck alone. that doesn't make sense. it's inexplicable. if you aren't willing to acknowledge you are facing a committed network of terrorists as your enemies and it's radical, jihadist islam, then your response to that is by definition going to be insufficient time and time again. >> chris: cut in here because i want to talk about another subject with you, bill. i don't get it. why does eric holder and why does john brennan keep talking about new york city as a possible venue for the k.s.m. trial? i would bet everything i have that the trial will not be held in manhattan. why do they keep talking about this? >> i don't think the trial will be held in any civilian court and they won't admit that. they want to stall until the election and hope voters will forget how foolish and reckless they were -- >> chris: isn't it better to get it off the table than sit here and defend it? >> i think it would be and also that they are not going to close guantanamo bay either, because they don't have anywhere to place these individuals unless they return to the battlefield but
9:40 am
the administration wants them to forget about the errors rather than admit them and get them out of the way. >> chris: mara, do you have any explanation why they don't say okay, it's not in new york? >> the sooner they can decide where they will try them is the better. it's inconceivable it's in new york. the mayor is against it and all sorts of people are against it. the sooner they make a decision on this is the better. guantanamo is a different matter. they have worked hard to try to come up with a plan, to try to get republican supporters like lindsey graham to work with them on trying to figure out what to do with the remaining terrorist. on new york, the sooner they figure out what they'll do with them the better. >> any moment spent on government energy focused on where we'll try k.s.m. when he already asked to plead guilty in a military tribunal is a moment not spent focused on how we will win the war. it's a waste of time and i don't see frankly how you can defend the time and energy going into making a decision that frankly has already been made.
9:41 am
we have to stick to his request to plead guilty in a military tribunal. >> it seems to me we have tried hundreds of terrorists in civilian courts around the country and had tremendous success in convicting them and -- >> chris: you think it's okay to hold it in new york city? >> the mayor doesn't like it and you hear people involved in the system, including democrat senators opposed to it, but i don't see we should abandon the criminal justice system because we decide these guys are terrorists. we have people we put in military tribunals and they haven't had the same success as the civilian court, so i think we should have all options on the table. >> chris: i just want to say, if they have the trial in new york city, i want you personally to be covering it. >> i'll drive around for you. [ laughter ] >> chris: no, cover it! all right. you're a sly one. we have to take a break here, but when we come back, tough week for the world financial markets. we ask the panel to connect the global dots and tell us what it means for the u.s. economy. back in a moment.
9:42 am
sfx: car crashing ♪ ♪ this is onstar. i've received a signal you've been in a crash. i'll contact emergency services. about all the discounts boswe're offering. i've got. i some catchphrases that'llideas make these savings even more memorable. gecko: all right... gecko: good driver discounts. now that's the stuff...? boss: how 'bout this? gecko: ...they're the bee's knees? boss: or this? gecko: sir, how 'bout just "fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance." boss: ha, yeah, good luck with that catching on! anncr: geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
9:43 am
over a million people have discovered how easy it is to use legalzoom for important legal documents. so start your business, protect your family, launch your dreams. at we put the law on your side.
9:44 am
9:45 am
in the last two years you see where we bailed out wall street and g.m. and chrysler and fannie mae and freddie mac and now we're being asked to help bail out greece. >> chris: republican congresswoman kathy mcmorris-rogers talking about greece's financial troubles, which are being felt around the globe. we're back now with our panel. so bill, we all saw the pictures this week of rioting in the streets of athens. today, the international monetary fund is set to approve a $39 billion bail-out for greece, which may end up costing the u.s. about $7 billion, because we're partners in the i.m.f., on top of $106 billion bail-out from the european union. is the $7 billion good use of the american tax dollars? >> it's doubtful.
9:46 am
scary to let a country default on the bond but maybe we better do it now and work out repayment scheme with the creditors than bail them out and have to bail out portugal and spain and others down the road. one person on wall street compared to us not aig or fannie mae but bear stearns, a reasonable small firm that went under in april of 2008 and was bailed out. the fed saved us. heaved a sigh of relief. we stopped the contagion and we made the creditors hole and now we don't panic. six months later, it's everything else and the friends said this is the equivalent of bear stearns and we may have in the next three or six months have the equivalent of huge meltdown like september if spain has to be bailed out. >> chris: the other side of the argument is the greek crisis is going to spread, what is called contagion to spain, portugal, ireland and the rest of europe and could threaten the world economy. >> yeah, look, it's very scary. there are a lot of scary
9:47 am
lessons here. number one, this is the reaction you get when you get the economy in such bad shape you have to put in a stiff austerity regime and your citizens revolt. i don't think the united states will ever get to that but you can look in the mirror and see problems if not addressed in a timely manner get wors worse when you have big deficit and debt. as far as contagion, it's something to worry about. that's what we saw with the financial crisis two years ago. these things tend to spread. the idea we're bailing out greece is kind of silly. it's because we are contributors to the i.m.f. that you could say indirectly we're bailing out greece. it's a great conservative talking point. "ahh, another bail-out." first tarp, the auto companies and now greece. the german taxpayers might have to. but is it a concern. there are a lot of things that threaten this nascent recovery we're having in the united states, including the oil spill, which at some
9:48 am
point is going to wreak havoc on the tourism and fishing industries in the gulf coast. >> chris: liz, it has been said that greece is the poster child for a european social democracy. let's take a look at some of the facts about the greek economy. they're astonishing. many people retire, retire at age 53. sounds pretty good. government workers get holiday bonuses. the annual deficit in greece is 13% of g.d.p., and the nation's debt is 124% of the annual output of the greek economy. is there a cautionary tale here for the u.s.? >> yeah, absolutely. and i think when you look at the question of whether the u.s. taxpayer ought to be contributing to bailing out greece, i think you have always got to say wait a second. at the same time we're looking to having to put $7 billion in to bail out greece, and i think there is a real threat of contagion here, we have the same types of policies put in place here in the united states that frankly are much more likely to lead us down the path we
9:49 am
see greece on. the out-of-control spending, the debt. i saw some place recently i think the c.b.o. said that the obama administration in its first three years will add, will have to boarrrow $3.7 trillion, which is more than the first accumulated total national debt in the first 225 years of the nation. you have a spending bill going on and expansion of the role of the federal government. some of the i.m.f. requirements of greece will be, for example, they have to get the government out of the healthcare system and make their economy more hospitable to private investment. those are the things we should be doing here. i think the danger is that the obama administration is not heeding the cautionary tale we see in greece. >> chris: juan? >> obviously, you can't say that what happens in europe is going to stay in europe. that's why i think the markets are so jittery right now. everybody is concerned about what is taking place over there and it threatens this fragile recovery we're experiencing here in the united states we felt've seen
9:50 am
increase in jobs in a way we haven't seen in four years and a bump-up in terms of the manufacturering and construction. unbelievable. good news at the moment. but the question is how do you support and how do you sustain it? i don't think it's rational to say pull the money out of the i.m.f., forget the rest of the world. as mara said, it might be a good talking point for some people who want to beat up the administration, but the reality you've got to make sure that the european economy remains strong. otherwise, it is going to infect, not only investors and money in the stock market by driving it down but consumer confidence. you can't have consumers confident by spending money, which is key to the american recovery if they are looking overseas and seeing trouble. >> chris: all right, we talk about bail-outs. i want to talk about another aspect of bail-outs. we may have seen the first, one of the first political casualty of the vote for bail-outs in this country. that is that utah senator robert bennett, a three-term u.s. senator was defeated on saturday in his bid for renomination by the tea party
9:51 am
among others. and bill, one of the reasons was stated by his opponents in utah at the state convention was because he voted for the tarp bail-out. >> i think the tarp bail-out turned out to be a more potent issue in the republican primaries than people expected. not so much they passed the vote, itself, but the symbolic of people in washington letting us get to a situation where we had to have that bail-out and where we had subsequent bail-out. bennett was defeated by very attractive young conservatives going into a primary runoff. some can say he was defeated by the tea party but if you look at the candidates, they're impressive young conservatives who want to rethink fiscal and economic policy across the board in a bolder way than the established republican bennett was doing. >> this is evidence of how the political movement is moving to the right wing. so bennett is driven out because he's not conservative.
9:52 am
>> you think they should be in there forever? have you looked at the qualifications of the people running in utah? >> yes, they're fine. >> have you looked at that? terrible, god forbid they'd -- >> if i looked in utah, i'm going to give up bob bennett and all the seniority and connections -- >> why do you need seniorisenio? to bring the pork home? >> you think the tarp and bail-out are terrible though we saved ourself from a depression? that's rational, good inspired caring about america? >> the republican party in the senate is going to look really different in 2011. >> both parties in the senate may look really different in 2011. thank you, panel. see you next sunday. now a program note. next week we will have exclusive interviews with former first lady laura bush at her home in dallas. also, former speaker of the house newt gingrich. if you have questions for either of them, you can post them at up next, a mother's day power player of the week. ♪
9:53 am
[ male announcer ] we call it the american renewal. because we believe in the strength of american businesses. ♪ ge capital understands what small businesses need to grow and create jobs. today, over 300,000 businesses rely on ge capital for the critical financing they need to help get our economy back on track. the american renewal is happening right now. ♪
9:54 am
>> chris: now a special mother's day story. about a treasured member of fox news who has been fighting a tough battle this last year, while taking care of her three young children. here is our power player of the week. ♪ ♪ >> i think when you are a mother, you don't have time to stop and think about it. you immediately go into action mode and you think okay, i've got to be strong, because i have to be strong for my kids. >> chris: it was september 28, when jennifer griffin,
9:55 am
fox news national security correspondent, found out she had an aggressive form of breast cancer. her first thoughts were of her children. daughters, alysse, amelia and baby luke. she and her husband greg decided right away to be open about it. >> what scared you? >> getting breast cancer. >> your first question is can we catch it? that's the first thing you have to tell children is you are not going to catch it. then what scared them the most was the fact i was going to be bald. i said i'm going to lose my air. that's when amelia's mouth dropped. >> jennifer tried to involve her children, to take the fear out of the illness. she told them she would get wigs like their favorite miley cyrus on "h "hanna montana." when she shaved her head she brought her 7-year-old along. >> she video cameraed it and
9:56 am
she was at ease for the bald issue. >> chris: it was tougher for 9-year-old analise. >> everything is going to be fine. >> does it make you not want to come close to me? >> chris: there was another crisis when kids at analise's school started saying she had breast cancer. jennifer ended up going to both her girls' classrooms. >> you can't cat catch cancer. you can't catch it from me. >> i was bald as a cueball and that helped for her to explain why her mom showed up with a different weg for each pick-up. >> chris: sometimes the children lifted jennifer up. one night she came home from a tough chemo session. >> in the kitchen and he had just taken his first steps and luke walked toward me. immediately i forgot about the chemo and the girls had him doing laps in the living room until he could barely walk. >> chris: there must have been tough moments, low moments. >> definitely.
9:57 am
there were nights where analise cried herself to sleep and i had to lie down with her and comfort her and she asked if i was going to die. >> chris: did you every think were you going to miss the moment of the children growing up? >> every minute of every day i thought that. that's in the back of every mother's head but you dig deep and say i will be there for the graduation and the grandchildren. >> chris: three weeks ago after a double mastectomy, jennifer got astonishing news: she is now cancer-free. she says the children were the calmest members of the family. what have you lost this last year and what have you gained? >> we lost a little bit of innocence this year. but what we gained as a family in terms of them understanding that life isn't always fair and that if you are strong and you set your mind to something, you can
9:58 am
get through it. i think we gave it a lot more than we lost. >> chris: is this mother's day special for you? >> i think the fact that i'm here to celebrate this mother's day and next mother's day with my children and my husband, i think every mother's day is going to be special from here on out. >> chris: jennifer now has six weeks of radiation and she and her family will hope and pray for the next three years when a recurrence is most likely. but she plans to be a forceful advocate for breast cancer awareness. and in the fall, she will be right back here at fox news. that's it for today. to all of you moms, especially mine, thank you. we hope you have a wonderful mother's day. have a great week. see you next "fox news have a great week. see you next "fox news sunday." captioned by closed captioning services, inc
9:59 am
the risk-takers. the visionaries. the entrepreneurs... who put it all on the line to build and run their own businesses. at at&t, we know something about that. our company started out in a small lab, with not much more than a dream. and today, we know it's small businesses that can create the jobs america needs. that's why at&t is investing billions to upgrade and build out our wired and wireless networks. making them faster, smarter, and more secure. connecting small businesses to markets across the country, and around the world. we invest now, because we know it will pay off... with new jobs, new growth, from a new generation, putting their belief in the future on the line. now is the time for investment and innovation. the future is waiting. and the future has always the future is waiting. and the future has always been our business.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on